Android was once poised to be an operating system for cameras

Then a shift in the industry convinced Google to switch gears.

Android co-founder Andy Rubin disclosed that Android was once considered as an operating system for cameras. "The exact same platform, the exact same operating system we built for cameras, that became Android for cellphones," said Rubin, speaking at the Japan New Economy Summit in Tokyo.

The initial plan for Android was to develop it as an operating system for cameras with built-in cloud capabilities so that photos could be stored online. Rubin shared slides from his original pitch to investors back in 2004, one of which showcases a camera that could be connected to a computer wired or wirelessly, with the computer linked to an "Android Datacenter."

But as Google worked on this concept, the mobile world was experiencing its own revolution. The company decided to switch gears five months later. "We decided digital cameras wasn't actually a big enough market," said Rubin. "I was worried about Microsoft and I was worried about Symbian. I wasn't worried about iPhone yet."

Google shifted gears to announce an "open-source handset solution" but kept Java as the core of the OS. With the aim to grow, the search giant decided to offer Android free rather than charge a fee to use it on a handset. "We wanted as many cellphones to use Android as possible," said Rubin.

Fortunately for Google, it seems it made the right decision, as the operating system is on track to cross the one billion mark this year, according to Google CEO Eric Schmidt. As for Rubin, he stepped down last month as Google's senior vice president of Mobile and Digital content to pursue other endeavors within the company.

But as Google worked on this concept, the mobile world was experiencing its own revolution. The company decided to switch gears five months later. "We decided digital cameras wasn't actually a big enough market," said Rubin. "I was worried about Microsoft and I was worried about Symbian. I wasn't worried about iPhone yet."

Google shifted gears to announce an "open-source handset solution" but kept Java as the core of the OS. With the aim to grow, the search giant decided to offer Android free rather than charge a fee to use it on a handset. "We wanted as many cellphones to use Android as possible," said Rubin.

I think you have the timeline wrong. These changes all occurred before Google acquired Android Inc.

The Android camera software did not become good until 4.0. Its its interesting seeing Cameras nowadays running on Android. Apple has since the 3GS invested a lot into their camera R&D. Heck they delayed white iPhones because the color caused to much flash reflection and ruined photos being taken. 3GS was so much better than my Moto Droid, despite similiar hardware.

Until really 4.1 the camera features have been a oversight. 4.2 camera upgrades are great.

Wow, he actually speaks like most camera makers would have even considered adopting something they didn't need or would even want. Either they weren't aware of Adobe's experience with DNG or they were delusional.

I've been seriously into photography since the 70s, including having my own darkroom, and I own some of the more advanced digital cameras of today and none of them need Android. The type of "photographer" today that thinks that way is usually much more the computer geek than a photographer, and I say that also as a computer geek myself.

Edit: I see I have gotten 5 down votes but only one person has bothered to explain why. Not too surprising as this is not a photography forum and I'm sure there are much more people here knowledgeable about computers than they are about photography. Maybe you people were offended by the use of the phrase computer geek? It wasn't meant as an insult. Either that or you guys do not know about Adobe's experience and how well the most advanced cameras of today work without needing something like Android.

I can't begin to imagine how awesome this would have been if it were an open-sourced OS with a more developer-friendly API. Couple that with the cost-savings of not having to maintain the OS (similar to what Amazon and Samsung have done)?

I can't begin to imagine how awesome this would have been if it were an open-sourced OS with a more developer-friendly API. Couple that with the cost-savings of not having to maintain the OS (similar to what Amazon and Samsung have done)?

I think it would have gone over swimmingly, if anything.

Not at all. I think I know more than enough about the industry to make such a statement, and I certainly know more than enough about cameras and photography to make the statement that even the most advanced cameras today do not need something like Android. None of the major camera manufacturers would have ceded control of their cameras to an outside common source operating system. Adobe couldn't even get them to use a common raw file no matter how much they conceded away.

Custom firmware? The big camera makers will never support that. CHDK is for computer hackers and computer geeks trying to make cheap amateur Canon cameras do more than they were designed to do. Sorry, but there is no sizable community of reasonable significance doing that. It's like I said in my original comment, only computer geeks would be so wrapped up in the idea of Android on cameras, or using things like CHDK, not real or serious photographers, and certainly not the average camera owner.

The only thing I can see is iOS or Android apps being allowed to add is some remote functionality from a tablet or a phone but not running actual cameras from the big camera makers.

For most people today, their phone is their camera. If the goal had been to get Android controlling a large proportion of cameras people use, making it into a phone OS was a smart choice.

It still never ceases to amaze me that you can have a smartphone take better pictures then 99% of the dedicated digital cameras from 5 years ago. Hells to the yah.

This isn't remotely true. Pixel size determines the ability to gather light. Phone sensors are smaller that "dedicated digital cameras", be it DSLR or the better point and shoots. Thus phones suffer in low light. Then there is Dawe's limit, which relates resolution to aperture. Phone lenses are smaller than any point and shoot or DSLR. Lastly, the color accuracy or phones is not on par with a real camera.

For most people today, their phone is their camera. If the goal had been to get Android controlling a large proportion of cameras people use, making it into a phone OS was a smart choice.

It still never ceases to amaze me that you can have a smartphone take better pictures then 99% of the dedicated digital cameras from 5 years ago. Hells to the yah.

This isn't remotely true. Pixel size determines the ability to gather light. Phone sensors are smaller that "dedicated digital cameras", be it DSLR or the better point and shoots. Thus phones suffer in low light. Then there is Dawe's limit, which relates resolution to aperture. Phone lenses are smaller than any point and shoot or DSLR. Lastly, the color accuracy or phones is not on par with a real camera.

I said most from 5 years ago. The cheap cameras that most people were using 5 years ago sucked compared to what we have today in smartphones cameras, regardless of physical limits.

This isn't remotely true. Pixel size determines the ability to gather light. Phone sensors are smaller that "dedicated digital cameras", be it DSLR or the better point and shoots. Thus phones suffer in low light. Then there is Dawe's limit, which relates resolution to aperture. Phone lenses are smaller than any point and shoot or DSLR. Lastly, the color accuracy or phones is not on par with a real camera.

I think some of the conflicting opinions have to do with how someone might define a camera. For me a good camera has quick and ergonomic access to all the controls I need. As long as it has manual controls that aren't hidden away I can do anything that isn't limited by my lens.

Other peoples needs are different. Not everyone knows, or cares to know how a camera works. Smart phones are cannibalizing point and shoots, that's fine. I think the issue some people have is with GLUTTONY OF FEATURES, and how that trend might affect the camera industry.

It's not unfounded. When I compare my cell phone to a large ergonomically crafted land-line phone from a by-gone era the land-line is a better phone, no argument. But the mobile phone is small, mobile and does other things. I wish my new AT&T dumb phone would focus on being a good phone, but instead they pack it with 3G and AT&T App store and lots of cheap bells and whistles that make it harder for me to do things the things I would do with a regular phone.

Some people are worried that the camera industry will end up like the phone industry.

I can't begin to imagine how awesome this would have been if it were an open-sourced OS with a more developer-friendly API. Couple that with the cost-savings of not having to maintain the OS (similar to what Amazon and Samsung have done)?

I think it would have gone over swimmingly, if anything.

Not at all. I think I know more than enough about the industry to make such a statement, and I certainly know more than enough about cameras and photography to make the statement that even the most advanced cameras today do not need something like Android. None of the major camera manufacturers would have ceded control of their cameras to an outside common source operating system. Adobe couldn't even get them to use a common raw file no matter how much they conceded away.

Custom firmware? The big camera makers will never support that. CHDK is for computer hackers and computer geeks trying to make cheap amateur Canon cameras do more than they were designed to do. Sorry, but there is no sizable community of reasonable significance doing that. It's like I said in my original comment, only computer geeks would be so wrapped up in the idea of Android on cameras, or using things like CHDK, not real or serious photographers, and certainly not the average camera owner.

The only thing I can see is iOS or Android apps being allowed to add is some remote functionality from a tablet or a phone but not running actual cameras from the big camera makers.

I just love your No True Scotsman argument. I disagree with your assessment. There have been a number of occasions in which I wish I had a smart and/or programmable system in my camera. To give a couple of examples.

1) When I do astrophotography I would like the ability to manipulate the color of the back screen, or to just disable it all together. If it isn't an option in the camera's OS provided by the manufacturer then too bad. I obviously don't need that feature. On opensource "easy" to program Camera OS would allow me to do that.

2) When shooting certain scenes I have though on a number of occasions, "wouldn't it be nice if I could program a series of shots and have them execute automatically with out me touching the camera. Even on the tripod I get enough movement to mess up the shot." This is particularly relevant when trying to do HDR photography. Touching the camera has caused me trouble many times. Sure a better tripod would help, but a programmable interface would help too. Camera manufacturer decided that wasn't a feature that I might want in the camera so it wasn't included. It is near impossible for me to add it with out a PhD in computer science. An android like OS where I could put together or download my own programs would have solved this.

3) raw image formats. On a number of occasions I have run into trouble with raw formats manipulating data in a way I don't like. Yet another situation where a programmable interface that could be provided through an android like OS would have helped. If you ever read astrophotography forums you will see all the nikon users lamenting over the star eater "feature" of nikon cameras. If the OS was open and they could manipulate it then there wouldn't be a problem.

4) Again with astrophotography. It is a time consuming and difficult process. It would be wonderful if I could get a program to automatically stack preview images inside the camera while I am shooting so I can see if there are any problems. Don't have programmable interface and manufacturer doesn't provide it in their OS, well then too bad. I guess I could lug a computer around with me to do these things, but that sort of defeats the purpose of having a stand alone camera doesn't it.

I can sit here all day and come up with reasons that "real"/"serious" photographers could benefit from an opensource programmable interface. The fact that it could work like android removes the problem of it being a technie/nerdy pursuit only. Have a need? Go look through the apps. Chances are someone else has had the same problem and has written a program to solve it. Plug the USB into your camera or your SD card into the computer. Download. And ready to go. Problem solved. No need for difficult techie only solutions. The fact that CHDK exist proves that people want to add features to their cameras that the manufacturer may not have anticipated or decided wasn't worth the development time. It isn't about cheating and "making a cheap camera behave like a more expensive one" It is about molding the camera to fit your needs. Also I find your tone to be needlessly derisive, hence the disagreement and the downvote.

It actually would make a lot of sense for a camera company to open their OS in that way. It would mean they wouldn't have to provide development for a camera beyond the core features that make the camera what it is, and the hardware. And then they could still profit off of the apps in their app store adding the features they didn't bother to program in or anticipate. The only reason they haven't is because they like putting arbitrary limitations in different cameras to justify charging more for ones with the same hardware or very similar hardware.

I just love your No True Scotsman argument. I disagree with your assessment. There have been a number of occasions in which I wish I had a smart and/or programmable system in my camera. To give a couple of examples.

I have simply shared my opinion based on a reasonable level of knowledge of the subject. Everyone has an opinion and such opinions do not have to offer concessions or flexibility in how they are formed and what and who they include to please others, otherwise they would not be opinions. You can simply agree or disagree with my "assessment" and comment, if you like. That's what forums are about. It would have been best if you skipped your irrelevant opening comment and simply addressed the subject at hand.

short circut wrote:

1) When I do astrophotography I would like the ability to manipulate the color of the back screen, or to just disable it all together. If it isn't an option in the camera's OS provided by the manufacturer then too bad. I obviously don't need that feature. On opensource "easy" to program Camera OS would allow me to do that.

Such requirements are niche at best. Either the camera manufacturer will address whether it is worth supporting and include it as a feature in its software or it will not. Such a thing isn't going to drive the big camera makers to use a common OS.

short circut wrote:

2) When shooting certain scenes I have though on a number of occasions, "wouldn't it be nice if I could program a series of shots and have them execute automatically with out me touching the camera. Even on the tripod I get enough movement to mess up the shot." This is particularly relevant when trying to do HDR photography. Touching the camera has caused me trouble many times. Sure a better tripod would help, but a programmable interface would help too. Camera manufacturer decided that wasn't a feature that I might want in the camera so it wasn't included. It is near impossible for me to add it with out a PhD in computer science. An android like OS where I could put together or download my own programs would have solved this.

Intervalometer functionality is included in many cameras. Nikons, especially, do a good job of supporting that function. An "Android like OS" is obviously not required. I would suggest you buy the right tools for the job at hand instead of lamenting the fact that the camera you chose to buy does not include such functionality.

short circut wrote:

) raw image formats. On a number of occasions I have run into trouble with raw formats manipulating data in a way I don't like. Yet another situation where a programmable interface that could be provided through an android like OS would have helped. If you ever read astrophotography forums you will see all the nikon users lamenting over the star eater "feature" of nikon cameras. If the OS was open and they could manipulate it then there wouldn't be a problem.

Did you read my comments about Adobe's experience with DNG? Are you familiar with the subject?

short circut wrote:

4) Again with astrophotography. It is a time consuming and difficult process. It would be wonderful if I could get a program to automatically stack preview images inside the camera while I am shooting so I can see if there are any problems. Don't have programmable interface and manufacturer doesn't provide it in their OS, well then too bad. I guess I could lug a computer around with me to do these things, but that sort of defeats the purpose of having a stand alone camera doesn't it.

You're assuming that your requirements for a "stand alone camera" is something more than very niche.

short circut wrote:

I can sit here all day and come up with reasons that "real"/"serious" photographers could benefit from an opensource programmable interface. The fact that it could work like android removes the problem of it being a technie/nerdy pursuit only. Have a need? Go look through the apps. Chances are someone else has had the same problem and has written a program to solve it. Plug the USB into your camera or your SD card into the computer. Download. And ready to go. Problem solved. No need for difficult techie only solutions. The fact that CHDK exist proves that people want to add features to their cameras that the manufacturer may not have anticipated or decided wasn't worth the development time. It isn't about cheating and "making a cheap camera behave like a more expensive one" It is about molding the camera to fit your needs. Also I find your tone to be needlessly derisive, hence the disagreement and the downvote.

The computer geek aspect is the undue focus on such a thing to begin with when cameras simply do not require an Android like OS to operate and the naive expectation that the big camera makers like Nikon and Canon will want to give up control of their systems just because a bunch of phone manufacturers use Android. There is no compelling reason *for them* to move to such an OS. CHDK exists for computer geeks with cameras. For such people the camera hack is usually more important and fun than the photography.

Unlike your opening comment I have not been "derisive" to anyone in this discussion. It is also one thing to disagree with someone's supposed derisiveness and another thing to disagree with their position on a particular subject. It is not logical to disagree with me on the subject at hand just because you incorrectly think I am being derisive. Stick to the subject, otherwise you are coming across as simply trying to bolster your arguments on the subject by engaging in characterizations and irrelevancies.

short circut wrote:

t actually would make a lot of sense for a camera company to open their OS in that way. It would mean they wouldn't have to provide development for a camera beyond the core features that make the camera what it is, and the hardware. And then they could still profit off of the apps in their app store adding the features they didn't bother to program in or anticipate. The only reason they haven't is because they like putting arbitrary limitations in different cameras to justify charging more for ones with the same hardware or very similar hardware.

Putting aside camera industry specifics, your last sentence ultimately describes the reality of the situation and how most businesses are structured and function. Businesses exist to sell products and to try to get you to upgrade to future products. That's it. What *you ideally want* doesn't matter to them.

Camera makers also do not need to be involved in a common Android like OS to open their OS and be successful. Apple is a perfect example of that.

Unlike your opening comment I have not been "derisive" to anyone in this discussion. It is also one thing to disagree with someone's supposed derisiveness and another thing to disagree with their position on a particular subject. It is not logical to disagree with me on the subject at hand just because you incorrectly think I am being derisive. Stick to the subject, otherwise you are coming across as simply trying to bolster your arguments on the subject by engaging in characterizations and irrelevancies.

It is not derisive to point out the use of a logical fallacy which you did infact use. I did not disagree with you because you were being derisive. I disagreed with you because I think your assertions are incorrect and I provided specific examples as to why I found your assertions incorrect.

flashlight wrote:

I see I have gotten 5 down votes but only one person has bothered to explain why.

Hence why my characterization is not irrelevant, nor there simply to bolster my argument! I explained why I downvoted you. You actually asked for it. What do you want me to do?

flashlight wrote:

Wow, he actually speaks like most camera makers would have even considered adopting something they didn't need or would even want. Either they weren't aware of Adobe's experience with DNG or they were delusional.

flashlight wrote:

The type of "photographer" today that thinks that way is usually much more the computer geek than a photographer, and I say that also as a computer geek myself.

flashlight wrote:

no sizable community of reasonable significance

flashlight wrote:

only computer geeks would be so wrapped up in the idea of Android on cameras, or using things like CHDK, not real or serious photographers, and certainly not the average camera owner.

You find none of that derisive nor part of a no true scotsman style argument? You call people delusional, large communities insignificant, and assert that anyone interested in having the ability to extend the usability of their camera as "not [a] real or serious photographer." That almost perfectly fits the definition of derisive.

flashlight wrote:

Such requirements are niche at best. Either the camera manufacturer will address whether it is worth supporting and include it as a feature in its software or it will not. Such a thing isn't going to drive the big camera makers to use a common OS.

This is my point. The manufacturer doesn't need to address this issue. They can leave it completely in the hands of their users. Need that feature, then someone can easily add it. Then the programmer can sell it in the manufactures store and then they can take some of the profit off of that. It makes the job so much easier for the manufacturer.

flashlight wrote:

The only thing I can see is iOS or Android apps being allowed to add is some remote functionality from a tablet or a phone but not running actual cameras from the big camera makers.

flashlight wrote:

Intervalometer functionality is included in many cameras. Nikons, especially, do a good job of supporting that function. An "Android like OS" is obviously not required. I would suggest you buy the right tools for the job at hand instead of lamenting the fact that the camera you chose to buy does not include such functionality.

I don't think an intervalometer would actually solve that problem, unless it allows me to have the camera change the exposure compensation or shutter time. Furthermore, if I am spending 500-600 dollars on the camera and another 200-500 dollars on a decent lens then why should I buy a whole new camera just for a software feature that probably should have been there to begin with? This is exactly what I mean! The manufacturer didn't include it. It would be nice to be able to go online and download a pluginable program to add that feature. Also, I am not lamenting anything. I have the tool I can afford. A DLSR camera is a DSLR camera. The major difference between them is the hardware. I am talking about software features. There shouldn't be such a thing as "the wrong camera" not having a software feature, unless the camera is physically incapable of doing it. Again, if the hardware is all capable of doing it, which it generally is, then why add the unnecessary roadblock to access the functionality?

flashlight wrote:

Did you read my comments about Adobe's experience with DNG? Are you familiar with the subject?

Yes I absolutely did. I am not talking about adjusting a file format. I am talking about the filtering that some cameras apply to raw images before they are stored. For example, nikon applies a filter to their raw images to smooth out noise to hide their noisy chips. Something I could do myself in software much more easily with out the loss of information I am trying to extract.

flashlight wrote:

You're assuming that your requirements for a "stand alone camera" is something more than very niche.

That is sort of the point. It is an easy way to include all of the niche groups regardless of their size. (The astrophotographer one I can assure you is of a large size. Canon even made a camera just for them several years ago.)

flashlight wrote:

CHDK exists for computer geeks with cameras. For such people the camera hack is usually more important and fun than the photography.

Please back this statement up. It exists because some computer geeks with the ability to hack decided that it would be nice to have certain features in their cameras that they didn't have. Them liking to hack is only secondary to the camera lacking such features. Furthermore adding a more Android or iOS like system would remove the need for them to be hacking it. They wouldn't have to put in all that effort.

flashlight wrote:

Camera makers also do not need to be involved in a common Android like OS to open their OS and be successful. Apple is a perfect example of that.

They don't actually need to use one common to all of them. They can easily have one common only to their brand. The thing that Android and iOS add is a set of libraries that allow a programmer to add specific features to existing hardware that didn't exist before or that the company didn't want to spend money to add.

One concern that has been brought up is keeping the cameras features unobtrusive. I think that this is totally possible even with adding features like these.

As a photographer, I need my camera's interface to be lightweight and unobtrusive. Throwing Android at cameras is like using a sledge hammer to drive a nail.

I think it can be done in a light weight and unobtrusive way. It would require careful insight and planning, but I think it is certainly doable. Android might not be the best solution but something similar to android might be. No one has really done much of it yet. I have some ideas of how to make it work. Now if only I had the knowledge and resources to implement it.

But at that point in development, Android was an independent entity, right? So what was the end game? Sell the OS and license to camera OEMs, like Canon or Pentax or whomever? Or would they have considered making their own brand of Android cameras?

Otherwise, I can't see how it would have made money. And the latter was definitely doomed... the every day Joe Schmoe really has forgone point and clicks in lieu of dedicated cameras, at least for everyday use. Now... NO, I am NOT saying that cameras are on their way out... nothing beats a quality, dedicated device... but I think in the realm of casual-use devices... well... does anyone remember Flip?

And how did the guy(s) behind Danger and Sidekicks go from phones to cameras, only to later slap their foreheads and say "Oh! PHONES! Yeah! We're familiar in that area..."

Moderation: flagged for trolling.

Unlike your opening comment I have not been "derisive" to anyone in this discussion. It is also one thing to disagree with someone's supposed derisiveness and another thing to disagree with their position on a particular subject. It is not logical to disagree with me on the subject at hand just because you incorrectly think I am being derisive. Stick to the subject, otherwise you are coming across as simply trying to bolster your arguments on the subject by engaging in characterizations and irrelevancies.

It is not derisive to point out the use of a logical fallacy which you did infact use.

If we are going to be so sensitive one could argue you tried to do in a mockingly witty way.

short circuit wrote:

I did not disagree with you because you were being derisive.

Oh really? You are now contradicting yourself. Below is what you said.

short circuit wrote:

Also I find your tone to be needlessly derisive, hence the disagreement and the downvote

short circuit wrote:

Hence why my characterization is not irrelevant, nor there simply to bolster my argument! I explained why I downvoted you. You actually asked for it. What do you want me to do?

Your characterization is not relevant to the subject at hand. That's also another contradiction to your claim of "I did not disagree with you because you were being derisive. "

What do I want you to do? I made that very clear. Stick to the subject at hand and don't try and make this a personal issue. That would be the mature and respectful thing to do.

short circuit wrote:

You find none of that derisive nor part of a no true scotsman style argument? You call people delusional, large communities insignificant, and assert that anyone interested in having the ability to extend the usability of their camera as "not [a] real or serious photographer." That almost perfectly fits the definition of derisive.

Not at all. I even said that I'm a computer geek myself and specifically said it was not meant as a put down. More importantly it was not directed at anyone specific in this forum, unlike your remarks to me.

Look, I'm not going to play this childish schoolyard game with you. Either stick to the subject or you will not get a further response from me. Actually, this is my last response to you.

short circuit wrote:

This is my point. The manufacturer doesn't need to address this issue. They can leave it completely in the hands of their users. Need that feature, then someone can easily add it. Then the programmer can sell it in the manufactures store and then they can take some of the profit off of that. It makes the job so much easier for the manufacturer.

Why would they do that if they could sell you an attachment or a more expensive model with such features?

short circuit wrote:

Yes I absolutely did. I am not talking about adjusting a file format. I am talking about the filtering that some cameras apply to raw images before they are stored. For example, nikon applies a filter to their raw images to smooth out noise to hide their noisy chips. Something I could do myself in software much more easily with out the loss of information I am trying to extract.

If camera makers are resistant to adopting a common raw file what makes you think they are open to allowing that kind of control? Short of giving the camera maker feedback on having a choice to prevent such noise reduction through an option it is wishful thinking to expect to get that kind of low level access.

short circuit wrote:

That is sort of the point. It is an easy way to include all of the niche groups regardless of their size. (The astrophotographer one I can assure you is of a large size. Canon even made a camera just for them several years ago.)

Your niche requirements don't drive their business and "niche groups," by definition, are small.

Yes, Canon made such a camera, but that's obviously something different to what we are discussing. The fact that *they made a camera* for such use supports everything I have been saying. Why would they want to create a system that would prevent the sale of such a specialized camera?

short circuit wrote:

Please back this statement up. It exists because some computer geeks with the ability to hack decided that it would be nice to have certain features in their cameras that they didn't have. Them liking to hack is only secondary to the camera lacking such features. Furthermore adding a more Android or iOS like system would remove the need for them to be hacking it. They wouldn't have to put in all that effort.

No, the desire to hack cheap cameras, as opposed to simply buying a more capable camera, and the obsession over specific functions instead of simply concentrating on taking pictures and learning to become a good photograper is primary to most of those people. I back that statemnt up from knowing and talking to such people over the years, whether in person or through photography forums going back to the newsgroup days. I'm very familiar with that type of "photographer." Their portfolios of work almost always reflects their limited focus.

short circuit wrote:

They don't actually need to use one common to all of them. They can easily have one common only to their brand. The thing that Android and iOS add is a set of libraries that allow a programmer to add specific features to existing hardware that didn't exist before or that the company didn't want to spend money to add.

One concern that has been brought up is keeping the cameras features unobtrusive. I think that this is totally possible even with adding features like these.

You should read my comments more carefully. My remarks have been directed at an open and common OS. Feature obtrusiveness also hasn't been my concern or what I have been talking about. Address those comments to the people that made them.

Unlike your opening comment I have not been "derisive" to anyone in this discussion. It is also one thing to disagree with someone's supposed derisiveness and another thing to disagree with their position on a particular subject. It is not logical to disagree with me on the subject at hand just because you incorrectly think I am being derisive. Stick to the subject, otherwise you are coming across as simply trying to bolster your arguments on the subject by engaging in characterizations and irrelevancies.

It is not derisive to point out the use of a logical fallacy which you did infact use.

If we are going to be so sensitive one could argue you tried to do in a mockingly witty way.

short circuit wrote:

I did not disagree with you because you were being derisive.

Oh really? You are now contradicting yourself. Below is what you said.

short circuit wrote:

Also I find your tone to be needlessly derisive, hence the disagreement and the downvote

short circuit wrote:

Hence why my characterization is not irrelevant, nor there simply to bolster my argument! I explained why I downvoted you. You actually asked for it. What do you want me to do?

Your characterization is not relevant to the subject at hand. That's also another contradiction to your claim of "I did not disagree with you because you were being derisive. "

What do I want you to do? I made that very clear. Stick to the subject at hand and don't try and make this a personal issue. That would be the mature and respectful thing to do.

short circuit wrote:

You find none of that derisive nor part of a no true scotsman style argument? You call people delusional, large communities insignificant, and assert that anyone interested in having the ability to extend the usability of their camera as "not [a] real or serious photographer." That almost perfectly fits the definition of derisive.

Not at all. I even said that I'm a computer geek myself and specifically said it was not meant as a put down. More importantly it was not directed at anyone specific in this forum, unlike your remarks to me.

Look, I'm not going to play this childish schoolyard game with you. Either stick to the subject or you will not get a further response from me. Actually, this is my last response to you.

short circuit wrote:

This is my point. The manufacturer doesn't need to address this issue. They can leave it completely in the hands of their users. Need that feature, then someone can easily add it. Then the programmer can sell it in the manufactures store and then they can take some of the profit off of that. It makes the job so much easier for the manufacturer.

Why would they do that if they could sell you an attachment or a more expensive model with such features?

short circuit wrote:

Yes I absolutely did. I am not talking about adjusting a file format. I am talking about the filtering that some cameras apply to raw images before they are stored. For example, nikon applies a filter to their raw images to smooth out noise to hide their noisy chips. Something I could do myself in software much more easily with out the loss of information I am trying to extract.

If camera makers are resistant to adopting a common raw file what makes you think they are open to allowing that kind of control? Short of giving the camera maker feedback on having a choice to prevent such noise reduction through an option it is wishful thinking to expect to get that kind of low level access.

short circuit wrote:

That is sort of the point. It is an easy way to include all of the niche groups regardless of their size. (The astrophotographer one I can assure you is of a large size. Canon even made a camera just for them several years ago.)

Your niche requirements don't drive their business and "niche groups," by definition, are small.

Yes, Canon made such a camera, but that's obviously something different to what we are discussing. The fact that *they made a camera* for such use supports everything I have been saying. Why would they want to create a system that would prevent the sale of such a specialized camera?

short circuit wrote:

Please back this statement up. It exists because some computer geeks with the ability to hack decided that it would be nice to have certain features in their cameras that they didn't have. Them liking to hack is only secondary to the camera lacking such features. Furthermore adding a more Android or iOS like system would remove the need for them to be hacking it. They wouldn't have to put in all that effort.

No, the desire to hack cheap cameras, as opposed to simply buying a more capable camera, and the obsession over specific functions instead of simply concentrating on taking pictures and learning to become a good photograper is primary to most of those people. I back that statemnt up from knowing and talking to such people over the years, whether in person or through photography forums going back to the newsgroup days. I'm very familiar with that type of "photographer." Their portfolios of work almost always reflects their limited focus.

short circuit wrote:

They don't actually need to use one common to all of them. They can easily have one common only to their brand. The thing that Android and iOS add is a set of libraries that allow a programmer to add specific features to existing hardware that didn't exist before or that the company didn't want to spend money to add.

One concern that has been brought up is keeping the cameras features unobtrusive. I think that this is totally possible even with adding features like these.

You should read my comments more carefully. My remarks have been directed at an open and common OS. Feature obtrusiveness also hasn't been my concern or what I have been talking about. Address those comments to the people that made them.

OMG what is it that you don't understand about this. Your derisiveness is why I downvoted you. My disagreement had nothing to do with that.

Here is an outline of my post. Sarcasm directed at you for using a logical fallacy in your argument. I disagree with you. Here are 4 examples demonstrating why i think this is incorrect. You asked why people downvoted you. I down voted you because I felt like your comments were derisive towards anyone who might want to use available technology. You said that people who want to use said technology are nneither real nor serious photographers.

Which is exactly what you did by suggesting people are not real or serious photographers if they want more out of their camera. You also called people delusional and insignificant.

Now to address specific points. At no point did I suggest an open raw format. Nor did I suggest manipulating the raw format. So your point about adobe's common raw format are irrelevant. I did address the processing of the raw data before the data is stored in a raw format. The distinction there is very important. Nikon and canon want to licence the use of their formats which is the reason they don't want a common format. What does that have to do with manipulation of the image before the file is stored?

SInce you won't be replying anymore there is no point for me to address the rest. I think I made my argument for having the ability to add your own programs clear.

No, the desire to hack cheap cameras, as opposed to simply buying a more capable camera, and the obsession over specific functions instead of simply concentrating on taking pictures and learning to become a good photograper is primary to most of those people. I back that statemnt up from knowing and talking to such people over the years, whether in person or through photography forums going back to the newsgroup days. I'm very familiar with that type of "photographer." Their portfolios of work almost always reflects their limited focus.

I feel like I need to address this point. Learning to become a good photographer and concentrating on taking good photos is a completely different issue from the technology. No amount of technology will ever take the place of selecting, composing, and taking a shot at the right moment. That is what a photographer does. The camera is their toolset to do so. The camera has specific tools to assist the photographer in taking said shot. So that the photographer can spend their time worry about composition, selection, etc... Additional tools does not make them any less of a superior photographer.

The desire to hack cameras is born out of two things. 1) people who like to hack things. and 2) people who viewed an arbitrary limitation on their capable hardware as something they didn't like. Who cares if it is a cheap camera. Why would I wan't to spend hundreds of dollars more on a camera that is more "capable" when the camera I have is perfectly "capable" of doing the things I want provided that the appropriate software is actually on the camera. The reason you buy a more expensive camera has more to do with there being a better sensor, better processor, more autofocus points, a bigger sensor, more pixels on the sensor, a better dynamic range, a better color representation, etc... I am talking about an OS for a camera with a programmable interface to add features it is capable of and should ultimately already have. If I have already bought a capable camera then why would I not want to be able to do the things it is actually capable of instead of what the manufacturer arbitrarily decided the capabilities are to sell me something significantly more expensive.

Finally the fact that it is only hackers and tinkerers and computer geeks actually doing these things completely disregards the nature of the problem. Right now allowing a camera to do the things it is capable of is very difficult. Only hackers, tinkerers, and computer geeks have the patience or desire to go through the trouble of doing these things. If you open it up the way I have suggested this will go from the realms of tinkerers, hackers and computer geeks to being available to everyone. If it is easy to do then every one who says "hey why doesn't my camera do X. It is capable of X" can just go add it to their camera.

It would also probably open up new venues for tools on the camera that people haven't even thought of yet. None of this takes away from the photographers responsibility to select, compose, modify, ligth, etc... a shot. It provides them tools so they are less distracted from that task.

This just reminds me how badly we needed the vision & obsessive attention to detail by Steve Jobs that finally gave the world a beautifully designed smartphone like the iPhone instead of the hideous Symbian monstrosities we were stuck with at the time. It also confirms how lacking in vision Google & the phone makers were until the panic buttons had been pushed belatedly after the appearance of the iPhone.

Florence Ion / Florence was a former Reviews Editor at Ars, with a focus on Android, gadgets, and essential gear. She received a degree in journalism from San Francisco State University and lives in the Bay Area.